What exactly is alleged to be in Ashley Biden's diary and when were entries dated?

1. Shocking personal allegations reported — what the diary actually says and how it reads to investigators

Court filings and reporting describe the diary as containing intimate accounts of trauma and recovery, including language about being “hyper-sexualized,” being “molested,” notes about taking showers with her father that she called “probably not appropriate,” and candid passages about addiction and therapy that Ashley framed as part of her healing process. These detailed, first-person passages were central to the controversy because they mix allegations about childhood experiences with later reflections on treatment and trauma, making the material both deeply personal and potentially politically explosive when publicized ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The timeline in the pages — when entries were written and how recent they are

Reporting and court filings place entries in the journal as recent as 2019 and as contemporaneous with the 2020 presidential campaign, with some accounts indicating entries dated around that election period. The presence of later entries complicates claims that the diary was solely about distant events: the text reads as an evolving personal record that spans years, including reflections written well after childhood and during adulthood, which is why courts and journalists treated the dates and continuity of entries as material to establishing authenticity and context ^{[2] [3]}.

3. How the diary left private hands — theft, sale and guilty pleas that traced its path

The diary was stolen from a Florida residence in September 2020 and sold by Aimee Harris and an accomplice, Robert Kurlander; both later pleaded guilty, with Harris receiving a jail sentence and probation for theft and sale of the property. The sellers approached political operatives and conservative organizations, ultimately getting paid and enabling selective publication shortly before the 2020 election. That criminal chain of custody is pivotal because it shows the document entered political markets through illicit means rather than via standard journalistic sourcing ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Authentication and the courtroom turning point — Ashley Biden’s confirmation and fact checks

Ashley Biden’s written testimony to a New York judge and court filings publicly acknowledged the journal as hers and framed it as part of her therapy and recovery, prompting fact-checkers to update prior “unproven” assessments to “true.” Courts have relied on those filings in rulings tied to seized devices and witness privilege, and the public confirmation shifted the debate from “is it real?” to “how should stolen intimate material be handled?” The legal record thus anchors the document’s provenance even as disputes over publication ethics continue ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Who amplified the content and why it became a political weapon

Conservative outlets and actors amplified selective pages: The National File first published extracts in 2020, and operatives tied to Project Veritas purchased material, illustrating a deliberate effort to place the diary into the political arena. Defenders characterize this as investigative exposure of potential wrongdoing; critics describe it as exploitation of stolen, private material intended to inflict political damage during an election. The sellers’ attempts to monetize the diary, and conservative groups’ willingness to pay and post excerpts, point to an overt political motive behind the document’s dissemination ^{[4] [1]}.

6. Remaining gaps that shape how the diary should be interpreted and used

Key unresolved issues remain: selective public postings mean readers never saw the whole context; legal redress punished the thieves but did not erase the online footprint; and courts have debated journalistic privilege when devices linked to the case were seized. The combination of authentic, personal content and its illicit distribution raises enduring questions about victims’ privacy, the responsibilities of publishers who receive stolen material, and how election-driven incentives distort private records into public weapons. Understanding the diary therefore requires reading both the text and the legal-political trail that put it online ^{[5] [3]}.